INTRODUCTION:
We now live in what is by general consensus called the “Post-modern”
era. This naturally invites the question as to why modernity has been unsatisfactory.
In turn, this surfaces issues relating to the dominance of epistemology in Western
thinking over the past several centuries, and the associated questions of faith,
reason and radical doubt; i.e. skepticism. So in this session and the next,
we will take a look at the rise and fall of the modernist paradigm of progress
and scientifically based enlightenment. In so doing, we will also highlight
the prospects for a renewed programme of Christocentric
prophetic intellectual and cultural leadership, such as transformed western
culture in the first several centuries of the Christian era, and a gain in the
aftermath of the reformation of five centuries ago.

1.
The Discontents of Modernity

Perhaps,
a good place to begin is a recent exchange in one of our local newspapers, which
aptly but sadly illustrates how philosophy often underlies popular discourse.

In this case, local
media pundit Michael Dingwall has publicly rebuked
Rev. Clinton Chisholm, a leading Christian Apologist in the Caribbean[1]:

We both know that what we call “God” is man-made; the reverend gentleman
is just having difficulty accepting the fact. There was history
before his God came and there will be plenty of it after man sees the light
and discards his God . . . .

[Chisholm] states
that the Christian God created man with free will and in exercising this free
will he sinned. I don’t see how he could make such a statement.
How can we be free to make choices, and at the same time be punished for making
the one that seems the better of the two? What kind of freedom is that?
It seems that the original purpose of the Christian God was for mankind to
remain forever ignorant, serving him blindly . . . Man may have been created
with free will, but he certainly did not have freedom to use that will.[2]

This
bold assertion of atheism illustrates the confident pugnacity of the secularist/atheistic
vision of the world, which sees the world through the eyes
of a materialistic, progressive, evolutionary, Naturalistic “Science” that “explains”
everything from hydrogen to humans. Such men therefore often deride the evangelical
concept of a Creator-Redeemer God who speaks in the pages of the Bible as a
dangerous myth used to support the power agendas of certain “backward,” religiously
motivated interest groups.

However,
in light of such an atheistic, evolutionary progressive worldview, “moral values”
are at best seen as relative to individuals, communities and cultures;
they lack any rationally or morally compelling universal scope. For, if we are
free to make choices, we should have the right do that which “seems the better” to us, perhaps
after a bit of reflection. Unfortunately, the deceptive effects of moral blindness,
selfishness and out of control passions are too often glided over with a sarcastic
remark or two that make it seem that it is those who are concerned about the
need for moral restraints who are living in Plato’s
Cave!

Consequently,
we can easily see why contemporary society struggles to find a way to consistently
justify moral restraints in the face of the ever-present nihilistic/Machiavellian
challenge that what counts is not so-called “morals” (much less stewardship
of our world and communities under God) but rather power to do as one pleases.
For, we must never ever forget that in the past 100 years, over 100 millions
have needlessly died in various attempts to achieve secularist utopias.

In
short, sadly, the mass slaughters of the last century in the name of progress,
the ruthless exploitation of the powerless, and the horrifying despoiling of
the natural environment emerge as natural outcomes of the modernist, progressivist worldview when it is unrestrained by moral considerations.
Thus, we see how post-modernity emerges as thinkers and societies grapple with
the discontents and disasters of modernity.

These
forces, events and trends clearly call out for a philosophical assessment and
an informed response.

2.
The Rise of Modernity and the Skeptical-Scientific Spirit

Now,
the roots of the modernist spirit and worldview lie in Rene Descartes’ pessimism
about knowledge. For, that C17 thinker struggled with radical doubts in the
face of the disintegration of the unities of the medieval world of scholarship
-- under the impact of: (1) the renaissance, (2) the age of discoveries, (3)
the reformation, (4) the resulting wars over religion and (5) the associated
rise of modern science:

It is now some
years since I detected how many were the false beliefs that I had from my
earliest youth admitted as true, and how doubtful was everything I had since
constructed on this basis . . . [So I] must once for all seriously undertake
to rid myself of all the opinions which I formerly accepted, and commence
to build anew from the foundations, if I wanted to establish any firm and
permanent structures in the sciences . . . . reason already persuades me that
I ought no less carefully to withhold my assent from matters which are not
entirely certain and indubitable than from those which appear to me to be
manifestly false, if I am able to find in each one some reason to doubt,
this will suffice to justify my rejecting the whole.[3]

Thus,
notwithstanding the infinite regress of doubts implied by Descartes’ words,
we find stated the energizing principle of the radical skepticism that has haunted
the world of thought ever since 1640. For, since most things
are not accessible to Mathematical certainty, doubt reigns as the champion by
default and faith in the absence of certainty appears to be naïve and/or dubious,
at best.

In this skeptical
intellectual context, scientific thinking soon became the model for a way forward:
a rational, step by step process for describing, explaining, predicting and
controlling the natural – and increasingly the human – world. For, through
the sciences and associated technologies, humanity has developed a proven means
of building reliably useful – even if not absolutely certain – knowledge of
the Laws of Nature. So, a spirit of optimism reigned (until the twentieth century):

The scientific vision was that through rational,
empirical approaches, our understanding of the world was ever increasing as
superstitions and speculations gave way to sciences and technologies that
harnessed the forces and materials of nature for the benefits of man.

The apparent universality of scientific laws
-- they appear to be without exception -- led to the conclusion that anything
which broke or claimed to break the lockstep uniformity of nature was doubtful
at best.

In particular, the notion of a miracle-working,
supernatural Creator and Redeemer of a fallen human race appeared to be just
so much superstitious nonsense. In response, it was confidently asserted that
“we are ascended apes, not fallen angels.”

Specifically, evolutionary mechanisms were deployed
to explain how, starting from a “cosmic egg,” the universe has unfolded from
hydrogen to humans, and may yet go beyond us. Indeed, that is the ultimate
dream of progress.

So, cosmic evolution gave rise to the first
stars, which on their death gave rise to the heavier elements that are embedded
in the planets that formed; leading to chemical evolution and the emergence
of self-replicating molecular complexes: life. Genetic mutation and natural
selection then led to the biodiversity of our planet, ultimately including
humans.

Once primitive man had evolved, socio-cultural
evolutionary forces acting over millennia then led to our current global civilization:
from stone- to bronze- to iron- to silicon- based technologies and societies.

But, in the
end, the second law of thermodynamics will prevail: over time the energy in
the universe is progressively degraded, and eventually the cosmos will die
a “heat death.” In that stasis, there will be no high grade energy to harness
for further evolution and the cosmos as we have known it will come to an end.

3.
The Epistemological clash: doubt, faith, reason and
knowledge

Clearly, epistemological
issues are central to the critical assessment of the modernist picture of the
world.

First,
is the Descartes project feasible?

No. For, as suggested
above, it leads to an infinite regress of doubts: “I doubt my existence. But,
to doubt is to think, and to think is to exist” implicitly assumes the continuity
of an I that can think, remember and perceive veridically.
Is that indubitably certain, given the uncertainties of our senses, memory
and perceptions[4]?

Obviously
not, and so, we see the corrective force of the principle of conservation of
beliefs:

It makes good
sense to stick with your current body of beliefs -- and to have confidence
that your basic belief forming mechanisms are generally reliable -- unless
there are compelling reasons to accept a radical alternative.

Furthermore,
Science itself is neither as progressive nor as certain as its more enthusiastic
proponents suggest. From the 1880’s to the 1930’s for instance, the classical
view of Physics that had been steadily built up since the 1660’s collapsed:
a mounting body of empirical evidence contradicted the hitherto well established
laws of Physics; under situations of the very small and/or the very fast and/or
very large. This led to the rise of Quantum mechanics to explain the strange
behaviour of matter and energy at molecular scales
and smaller, and of Relativity Theory to explain the behaviour of bodies traveling at about 1/10 the speed of light
and faster (as well as the gross structure of the cosmos in light of discoveries
about how gravity warps space and time).

As a result, Philosophy
of Science has undergone a considerable ferment across the last century[5]:

In the 1920’s,
the Logical Positivists proposed to use Science as the gold standard of knowledge.
They proposed that meaningful propositions are either analytic (their
truth necessarily follows from their meaning[6]),
or synthetic (they require an empirical investigation to be verified;
and so assert things to be so about the external world[7]).
The verifiability criterion was then used to distinguish such “meaningful”
claims from other assertions which are deemed meaningless – such as “God exists
and lives in Heaven.” As Ayer put it: “a sentence will be factually . . .
significant to a given person if, and only if, he knows how to [observationally]
verify the proposition that it purports to express.”

However, this
claim was immediately challenged, on the grounds that a great many people
in fact find that many claims that fail the verifiability test are meaningful;
that is, the implied definition of “meaningful” fails the common sense test.
Further investigation also showed it to be self-refuting: it is neither analytic
nor subject to empirical test, so it shreds itself. It still occasionally
shows up in the work or teaching of those whose epistemology is not current,
though.

In the 1960’s, Thomas Kuhn published his landmark
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, in which he documented that
Science tends to progress in two distinct modalities, “normal” science and
crises that may lead to revolutions. The core concept is the paradigm,
in effect the example set by a great success which reveals a new way of viewing
the world and solving its scientific puzzles. But over time, anomalies that
resist explanation may build up until a critical mass triggers a crisis in
which competing ideas of how to proceed are championed by various factions.

A revolution results if there is a paradigm
shift as a new paradigm triumphs, such as happened in Physics between
1880 and 1930. But, because the ways of viewing the world are incommensurate,
there is no common rational framework in which one judges how to make the
shift, the required judgement comes from radical perceptual changes at the
individual level, and a shift in the balance of power in the scientific community
at the discipline level.

This has led to the rise of a radical relativist
movement in philosophy of science, which sometimes reduces science to the
politics of the community of scientists. This movement draws strength from
the relativist trend in Western culture at large, and reinforces it. (Richard
Rorty and Paul Feyerabend
are good examples.) Sometimes, when one views the
notorious quarrels that have marred the history of science across the centuries,
one is tempted to accept this view!

Another perspective is Karl Popper’s concept
of Conjectures and Refutations (Harper and Row, 1963): in effect that
at a given time, the state of science is open-ended; with conjectures – theories
-- about the real world that have been proposed and are always under test;
for one counter-example is enough to overthrow a generalisation.
If a theory is such that it is not capable of empirical refutation, it is
unscientific. And, a theory that has stood the test so far is not so much
verified as probably true as it is as yet unrefuted
and possibly true. (But, this does not capture the confidence scientists have
that many of the more mature theories really do say something that is at least
approximately true: such as the planets orbiting the sun.)

In some cases, there are multiple paradigms
operating at any given time in a science, and one of these may be dominant.
Thus, it is possible for scientists to cluster around divergent paradigms,
leading to a lack of general consensus. This notoriously happened with Economics
and Psychology across much of the 20th Century. Currently, Evolutionary
Biology is racked by a three-way quarrel: (1) the dominant Neo-Darwinians,
(2) the Punctuated Equilibria advocates, (3) The
small but forceful Intelligent Design movement.

Others have
argued that in fact theories operate at differing levels, and micro theories
are held far more loosely than are broad research programmes/traditions; so
the concept of revolution should be reserved for dramatic shifts in
the latter. At this macro level, deeply held visions, traditions and values
strongly shape how scientists think and work, and so are resistant to change.
When change does come, it is by a radical reorientation of the scientific
world-view in that discipline, i.e. a paradigm shift. This perhaps is the
best summary of the radical shift in Physics that happened between 1880 and
1930.

Consequently, the
scientific picture of the world is not as certain or unified as we may have
been led to believe while doing School Science courses, or even in College.
However, the powerful impacts of science in our world lend scientific claims
great credibility, often to the point where “that’s unscientific” is tantamount
to the claim that something is irrational.

3. Faith,
Science, Philosophy and Theology

But,
notoriously, Theology is not scientific, and its “partner in crime”, morality,
is also a matter of what ought to be rather than what is the case. Are these
properly suspected of being significantly irrational and/or subjective only,
as some suggest?

Philosophical
analysis, in light of the recent history of the Philosophy of Science, gives
us a way to evaluate such a claim:

Doubts, uncertainties and disputes naturally
attend any human intellectual endeavour, so that there are limits to what can be proven
beyond all reasonable dispute, and there are many things that must be addressed
through a judgement of what is more or less reasonable
or prudent to believe and act on.

Scientific thinking is clearly based on the
logic of explanation/ abduction, and is simply incapable of proof beyond reasonable
dispute. For, while our theories, hypotheses and models may explain observed
phenomena and may successfully predict further events, the empirical support
thereby secured is not demonstrative. Thus, such knowledge claims are provisional
and interpretive, owing much to what the community of scientists collectively
holds to be plausible in light of their worldviews.

However, that we may not know perfectly does
not imply that we cannot know usefully and even with a high degree of confidence.
And so, scientific findings are routinely embedded in technology and in medicine,
reflecting our trust in it. In many cases, such as risky but powerful life-saving
medical treatments, we trust the findings with our lives.

As “trust” and
“confidence” imply, scientific reasoning also deeply embeds faith. Going further,
it is evident that we cannot reason without taking some things as trustworthy
without further demonstration, the starting points for our thinking: our basic
beliefs. For instance, we are forced to generally trust our ability to accurately
perceive the world, and our ability to remember, as well as to communicate
and to reason. Thus, the proper underlying question is not faith vs
reason, but which “faith” – better, which worldview – is more reasonable in
light of the relevant comparative difficulties.

All of this
is quite familiar in theological contexts: theologians seek to develop reasonable
explanations, weigh alternative frameworks and models, and in some cases directly
use scientific ands even mathematical tools and techniques that fit in the
general rubric of scientific methods. For instance, consider the Synoptic
Problem, which seeks a reasonable explanation for the apparent dependency
of Matthew and Luke on Mark, and the further commonalities and divergencies between the two longer Gospels. From this,
we see suggestions that there was an early Hebrew proto-Matthew, following
Papias’ statement reported by Eusebius. We see the
proposal that Mark was consulted as a source by the other evangelists, who
also had access to sources Q in common, and M and L separately.[8]

So, the explicit
role that faith plays in the theistic worldview is not that of a suspicious
“extra”; it is a reflection of a basic fact of life: we must make forced,
momentous choices on assumptions and alternatives that bristle with difficulties.
The issue is to hold a reasonable faith, then, and as we have seen, to reject
the theistic positions root and branch may come at a stiff metaphysical price.

Morality is closely linked, not least because
it is the context for one of the arguments that points to God. But also, it
is an easily checked fact that across time and cultures, people have an astonishing
degree of agreement as touching core moral issues. For instance, as C. S.
Lewis and others have pointed out, we quarrel by implicitly appealing to a
general sense of fair play, and those who are subjected to such claims do
not usually bat them aside as a lion would dismiss the plea of a gazelle;
but rather reason within this assumption.

Thus, we see why the Golden Rule – “do as you
would be done by” [cf. Matt 7:12, Lev. 19:15 – 18] – keeps on cropping up
in ethical contexts, across time and culture: there are Buddhist phrasings,
Confucian versions, Islamic ways to put it, and many other forms. Indeed,
Kant proposed a version of it as the keystone categorical imperative: live
by the principles that you could recommend to everyone, or equivalently do
not use people merely as means to your own ends.

Extending this,
we soon arrive at the principle of sustainable development: development
initiatives are sustainable if they help this generation (especially the poor,
powerless and voiceless) to ever more adequately meet its current needs, while
not compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
For, what we are doing here is to highlight the importance of treating the
powerless as we would wish to be treated, and our posterity, given the impacts
of our actions and examples on the community and the environment, local and
global.

Of course, the issue soon arises that sometimes
Environmentalists exaggerate or even manipulate our perception of the scientific
facts at stake in determining consequences. That is unsurprising, given that
it is in the nature of science to have diverse and even contradictory opinions
and judgements.

From this, we come to a derivative of Pascal’s
Wager: the precautionary principle. If the consequences of an action
are potentially sufficiently damaging to be irreparable, and the scientific
and economic evidence and judgements are in rough balance, then policy should err
on the side of caution and safety.

In
short, philosophical analysis shows that scientific thinking is not privileged
in a way that other fields of study are not. In particular, scientific work
is prone to disagreements, and even to quarrels among competing paradigms. In
general such thinking embeds a necessary open-endedness, and a willingness to
trust uncertain hypotheses, leading to a history of minor and dramatic changes
as the consensus of the relevant community evolves. This is quite similar to
the way other fields of study work, including theology and ethics; and so the
methods used have a significant degree of overlap.

CONCLUSIONS:
It is evident that the modernist tendency to denigrate theistic perspectives
and associated moral concerns has had a devastating impact over the past 100
years, when attempts have been made to institute progress-oriented utopias.
On examination of the closely linked concept that scientific methods are privileged,
it turns out that this is not so, and that the moral concerns characteristically
raised by theists are directly relevant to making and living by wise choices
in the community and wider world. Major ethical principles, such as the Golden
Rule/ Categorical Imperative; while originating in theological contexts, have
a general rationality that is objective and widely relevant. In the case of
Science, integrity in performing and reporting research and the findings of
that research are vital, if the field is to be worthy of the trust of the public
and policy makers alike. In public policy, the implications of the Golden Rule
directly speak into the soundness across time of policy alternatives, as well
as the impact of examples set by decision-makers and implementing agencies.
Finally, a version of Pascal’s Wager emerges as a powerful tool for guiding
decision makers in making prudent choices.

APPENDIX:
Evolutionary Cosmology Timeline for the Universe

The
following timeline is commonly taught in Colleges, High Schools and even Primary
School, as well as on the media, as a scientifically established framework for
our past.

Since human observations
cover a very short time interval and relatively short distance, making detailed
predictions about the distant future or distant past is difficult. Humans
can only observe a fraction of the total universe, and the observations cover
a very short time interval. It is possible that our current understanding
of physics contains errors that are only noticable on a very large time scale
or very large astronomical scale. See also:

Beginnings
of so-called "Common Era" (CE); i.e. that formerly dated from
the Birth of Christ and the origin of church: AD.

0.5
- 0.2 TYA

European
settlement of Americas. Globalisation begins as the Iberians pioneer global
trade routes dependent on the trade wind system discovered and used by Columbus
and other early navigators. Modern Missionary movements first begin in the
Catholic then the Protestant churches. Renaissance and reformation reach
their height, then foster rise of science, enlightenment and industrial
age. Rise of modern democratic self-government under the rule of law.

Points to ponder . . .

On balance, has science served to bring progress
or harm to the world?

Has the project of scientific enlightenment
under an evolutionary materialist view of the world allowed moral concerns
to play an adequate role in life and community?

Is radical doubt an appropriate paradigm for
progress and enlightenment?

In
light of the above, how should we respond to the needs and trends in the Caribbean?